






o 

o 






i t* • 

^ rv 



M O 


C' <0" ^ V I 

<. 'o . * * .0^ * 

<^* rt > O " ® - 

- ’t. c° °o 

* ^ 4 ' ^\\\'^'^* 

^ (V 

* 

o 


^ « o ^ <5,^ ‘ 

^ V ,» '* • o^ o. aO^ 

vC^ *■ rC(\ «» /K 


\ <V 

^ o O ^ ^o -A^ • *• ' * A 

► r-C^ 4*^ i 





'V -.^S^" - 

o > 



* ^ 
p •<? <-'' 

^ ^ *-„,.** 0^ 'V * 

-» /-O O -A^ , ^ ' « ^ ’<^ Q^ 0 ® " * <• 

9 >• 4 c^SAAVhN^O' 0^nf//^~> '*^ . ^ g^NXYVm^ ^ 

• ., „ _;^». Q . 

* ^ ^ ^>. *" 

V ,»' •”' P .o' . 

■V . .4\\x.s:i\///t • . ^^ayyinEE^- - ■'^.^■'’ -AWMl^/yio ''•_ c^ • 

'' % V 

‘"'’-, 0 -jA % 

-u- ;"mT»^" '^o> " 

aO s * V <»" * ‘'-e C' «0^ s * • • '^ \/ » 

Q V ^ O N o ^ (Jy^ .I^'* f\^ o>> o 

0 



4 9, 


V 


-4 

r 


^ Z cO ^ • .rt f' o 

", jfe'- . Wa" '"'t. 't 

. -4^ 

. . . «?%^* '^<^- ■ 

S' . ‘ 

*H> ^ ^ <5*^ rv> 0^0 

«■ ^ c®_®-«. o 

< 


























0 I ^ 



O. ^ 0 ’ V' - ’ • ^ 




O' "o "'v'rvs' A 


g-'s”'/ <!r %. 

<r. 'o, 

,*""■» ^ '‘JLJ 

- r O 

•- 0^ 




• I 1 


o 

*' O 

* ° ° ^ ^'P *' 

>■ V t' " * C' 

V>^ -O ’■ 

^ A ^■ 

c^ ^ O ^V■^ 

V ^ 

V % 


•■ ^ <■' 

O v/'- 

...'A 

0 v*. * * ‘A o 

/ i .. v.:?f^^wR^< NY'o ^ 


* A 




--w 




■i 




A " o « 0 ’ ^ o ^, ,,• ,0 

^ -5.^ ^ v^ C\ .0^ 

V 

o -V.-. ^ J>^ A <> '°*^'* , 




* -y -f- 





< O 

o -a? ^ 

X. '^'J.WXS^^ ' N^ 



: 


b 

A ^ 


V \ 

^ o ^ <v 'TA'’ •O'^ "'A^T^ A <b> 'o • * 



b V 




^ O 

«r 

. V ^ * ' ■' ‘ f ° ° N 0 ■«?, 

v^ f. ^ * o^ CV aO ^ .A A' 





















SPEECH 


I*'' " 

MR. J.^"C. ALFORD, OF GEORGIA, 


ABOLITION PETITIONS. 


•f»#r 

DELIVERED 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


.January 22 , 1840 . 





WASHINGTON. 

PRINTED BY GALES AND SEATON. 



1840 . 





L(''6»' ''i.: ;■ . ■ •' 


0 ^.' 


•'- ‘- ’’W 






»,\ 


^ * 





!■ ~ •■' ■<■■: 




y< 

*•*' 


r* 


\ . 


X 

I 


. y 1 



.'•fi*'' 


■? ' ' lx 

f*- »♦« 




1 

#> 

1 


, '*'iV?^^'’... *•*■■ '■ j^ • ; ■ . K'f.. .• .- 

,■ .■■, .- . ,• w-Y*' 1 '/v. 

• ' • ^ i' A . • t.r I'. 


f’AU 


t ♦ V 



' ■1ife -' "’v-r ■“^^• 

i.; 

■ 


3^ ''J i 


%. 


-• 'v 


r: 


■n^' 


- “ ■« - 
•A' t- 


’ A,*;. '■ ^ *1’" V 




t 


¥..i ' 




.os. - 

• \» 


t 




I I 





- 5 

' / • ^ - ; 


^P- 

*> 4-1 
* 

t . t • ^'■. ■•' «. 

*. 




4 

• 

t : 



4 




1> 


. ■ «■ * 


V»T 


/ • 

,•« . *’ 


u 


V ^ 


•• \. 


ill; 




J.^ 




"•■;'/il»H.’ s' 




'<■ 


W;' L ', 1 ’'iV''!-' ■ V^*' 




'S 


• ./ 

« 


'vr ■ 4 ■ : 

. V ' 

' ‘ ■'• •^. 4 


;■ .' - ,* 

• ■ . . / 

4 

ft 


> 


"!,■ 




:■' i'-*^ 


. > 1 ^ 


* it 


'■*•■. V 


* * -J-U. 


A :f 




V*. 

#1 




T.l 


;>• 




■ 




/?;v «•} 


:. :\ > 

.lAi^ 





‘ »■ 


' /. . 

• V 


*» 4 


•f 




♦> •it 


* A .*VVl 


t 


■ ',\ I' 

<:.•■• 

Vs 


fiiA/ 


\ 


;i'V 




M. ,iv 

I 

. V i • 

' l< ^ 


A /* » 

■ •■,\Or'' ■ 

if 

|k '< T7 




■,4'* >,)*■ ■‘'^J. 

; .f •' .; '., . 

,.4- - ^i:- 

, /. * vr'A- • 

iii :*' 

t^y ■ 

^ - 

r, * ■• >, 


'4 ’ ' fc . J* 

^ <»■ .^.r 


•4‘ 




Kv* I 



.- />»• '’• 


• 

. > 


.,, . s, ^'. .V ■ 



y A > •’ .f 

k 



’'v'< • •' ' !C ' Kr ) '■ -i 1 

: mr 


. • >. 




k ..•■'V/ ‘ ■ K# ” A I ■ ■'Si'Jfi-r^yiL. **' ♦’■ 

'A C % ■ ;.f 


4f^ 

Wr, 


.. ■ f ^ .N ' 


. t 


* 





m 

‘ r ■ ■ 


• 1 


1 

• :' r,:,.''rv' 

y * V' 

r f ’, . ; ‘ 

Ji’^/9- • i 


<• 


% * - 












’^.i 

4* J . *. VJ 


; X ' 






■'•»4 


■‘•S ■; . . ■ •■ - "i A ' '■ ’ ■'■' ^ 



\ ^ 

¥ •M •' 

,ft 

^ ft 

» 1 

v] - 








<. • 


1 

• 

4 « 



i. ) 

% , 

«,*• I 




r •■■ "■ 


*A. . 


A" 




' • 


V . 


*.-<v • 

^ •'•’ •* ■ ' 'Ajij 5^- > 


. ' \ . 

V *L 



.'•■'*<■• I* * • 

,/*'.• V '» J e.1 

V? ^ - v ^^•/ .. 


:j k:i3- A. ( 


A' 


i '*^ \ 

^ .- » 

•U. '. ■ ' .' 

V ■ ‘ 


i* ». 

■ >• . 


■ '•* ./ 

./' , 

■ ■' ■'; 

• T^. 

/1" 


/ . " • 


r.,;.,.. •... *■.',.,: ; .'T: , Hit, ' , ■ V' ■' * .t'-/ ^ •" .' 

' ■'■■■"•'■-.■■ • .■'■ I.i,.':'.; s-;#;'**-''^.,'- .) ,;.' ■■"'* ■ •" '^'^ . -- --J 


, / 9 J • »’ V 


.'V . .'■ HI 

* ' • ■ 5 - 


V ■>• 


) 


iH 


: -V^ ■' -K .’ 

/ .v, 



\* 


■■ ^' v-vt /jjT.:; 7 .Vsi;7.7■ -^. vv.I; -.:'' ■ ^. .7>’ 

A-' ' ’ V r- ..J. A.'' .,-i 








SPEECH. 


Mr. Speaker: I am pleased that I have at last obtained the floor, 
and have an opportunity of expressing my views in this Hall on this 
most important question—a question to my constituents of the deepest 
interest; one that strikes at the existence of the Union. 

I will not evade the question. If my friend from South Carolina, 
(Mr. Thompson) does not intend by his proposition to reject the r«- 
ception^ I will offer an amendment that shall bring the question di¬ 
rectly before the House, and compel this body to decide whether they 
will or will not receive these petitions. The gpntlennan signifies his 
intention is to refuse to receive these petitions ; such was my opinion 
of the object of the resolutions, and under that view of the question I 
support the amendment. 

I will meet this question at once on what its friends are pleased to 
call in this debate high constitutional grounds. Congress has no con¬ 
stitutional right or power to receive these abolition petitions; and let 
me say to gentlemen, in all truth and sincerity, that if they decide, in 
violation of that sacred instrument, that they shall be received, I will 
say to my constituents, from my heart and soul, that they have no 
longer any use for this Union. It will then be to them an engine of 
the most diabolical oppression. I am ready to say this to them when¬ 
ever gentlemen are ready to decide the question in favor of reception. 

I place the issue on their reception, and will proceed to demonstrate, 
on constitutional principles, that Congress has no right to receive, to 
consider, to report upon, or to grant the prayer of these petilitions. 

What is the object of these petitions? What do they pray for? 
Some of them go to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the District 
of Columbia; some to abolish it in the Territories, and some in the 
States; and some pray that no new State shall be admitted into the 
Union if the Constitution authorize the institution of slavery. It is 
in this broad sense I am about to consider the proposition. What 
says the Constitution ? Let us look to that. I have not come here 
to appeal to the North, the East, or the West, as men, to protect our 
rights. I appeal to no men, or set of men—to no party. Whig or 
Democrat—but I plant myself upon the Constitution of my country, 
the only basis upon which I am willing to stand. Were it not for this 


4 


Constitution, I would advise my constituents to go back to first prin¬ 
ciples ; were it not for the protection guarantied to them by this Con¬ 
stitution to enjoy their rights of property, as well as their private and 
political rights, I should tell them to protect themselves with their own 
strong arm. And if gentlemen doubt our ability to do so, let them 
look at this right arm of mine. But we have this Constitution, and 
gentlemen say they claim the right to present and consider these pe¬ 
titions under that clause which provides that “ Congress shall make no 
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free ex¬ 
ercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ; or 
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Gov¬ 
ernment for a redress of grievances.” I will not say that one man 
cannot petition as well as another, but I do mean to say that every 
one must petition for his own grievance. And I contend that slavery 
is no grievance. And if it were, it is no grievance of these petitioners, 
living as they do in States wdiere slavery is not tolerated by law. 
Each State of the Union has a Constitution of its own; and in the 
Southern States slavery is authorized by law. Each State legislates 
for its own people; and the people of one State have no interest in or 
right to control the legislation of another State, in regard to this ques¬ 
tion especially. 

The right of property held by the master in his servant in Georgia, 
according to the laws of Georgia, can be no grievance to the citizen 
of Maine ; nor is there any thing repugnant to this right of property in 
slaves in the Constitution of the United States; but on the contrary, 
the Constitution of the United States fully recognises this right of prop¬ 
erty in slaves, by just and ample provisions for the protection of our 
people in their domestic tranquillity. And, to insure the blessings of 
the relative condition of master and servant to us and our posterity, 
the framers of that instrument inserted a clause which authorized the 
importation of slaves into this country for many years after its adoption. 
Let the Constitution speak for itself: 

** The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing 
shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the 
year eighteen hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such im¬ 
portation not exceeding ten dollars for each person.” 

Thus it seems the Constitution contemplates the existence ofslavery 
in the States through all time; and who now can say in truth that it 
was ever contemplated by the framers of the Constitution that the peo¬ 
ple of any part of this Confederacy—the ladies of the North—would 
send to Congress petitions to interfere with our domestic tranquillity — 
to interfere with our right oj property, and claim that privilege of in¬ 
termeddling in other people’s business upon the ground that our law¬ 
ful and constitutional rights are a grievance to them 1 The absurdity 
of receiving these petitions is obvious to all. To me the proposition 
seems to violate all the principles of constitutional law, as well as 
every sentiment of humanity and religion. This question can only be 
the legitimate subject of discussion among the slaveholding people 


5 


themselves. The General Government has no power, by the Con- 
stitution, over the subject. To receive these petitions would imply 
the power to grant their prayers. Congress has no such power. 
Hence the absurdity of their reception. 

Not only did our fathers provide for our domestic tranquillity—not 
only did they authorize the importation of slaves into the States—but, 
knowing as they did, and believing as they must have believed, from 
the facts and circumstances of the times in which they lived, that the 
happiness of our people, their security, and the perpetuity of our Union, 
depended upon the preservation of the institutions of the South as they 
found them when they formed the Constitution of the United States, 
they, w'ith that patriotism and wisdom which distinguished them above 
all other men w'ho lived before them or will live after them, incorpo¬ 
rated into that Constitution a clause declaring that three-fifths of this 
properly shall be represented in the Congress of the United States. 

What would the honorable gentleman from New York, (Mr. Gran¬ 
ger,) with all his knowledge of the Constitution and with his ability 
in argument in favor of the right of petition on this question, think of 
a petition sent here from citizens of the South, praying that Con¬ 
gress would abolish the right of representation in New York, the em¬ 
pire State, and, if the gentleman please, in his own district? Yes, 
sir, w’hat would he say if the ladies of the South were to petition Con¬ 
gress to infringe the right of representation in New York, to diminish 
the number of their Representativp!f?, and disfranrhiso hia constituents? 
I cannot foretell the kind or power of the resistance the distinguished 
gentleman would offer to such a palpable abuse of the right of petition, 
and such a violent infraction of constitutional law. Yet such is the 
course pursued towards the South, and the arguments of gentlemen on 
this floor justify it, and amongst these champions of the right of peti¬ 
tion in this sense is to be found the honorable gentleman himself. 

As I sat out to defend the interest of my constituents on constitu¬ 
tional principles, and as I declared in the outset that I w'ould risk eve¬ 
ry thing with the Constitution, let us read it again, and see if it is not 
truly the ark of our political salvation: 

“ Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several Slates 
which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, 
which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including 
those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, ihree- 
fiftlis of all other persons.'^ 

Tlie abolition of slavery would, therefore, reduce the number of 
Representatives from the South to a very great extent, and would be 
a denial of the right of representation, a positive infraction of the right 
of representation authorized by the Constitution of the United States, 
exactly in proportion to the number of slaves represented upon this 
floor. 

Gentlemen complain that, by reason of this representation of slaves, 
the South has a preponderance in the political scale. Is this the rea¬ 
son that they favor abolition? Is this the reason they vote to receive 


6 


these petitions i If so, they seek to rob us of our constitutional rights 
by unconstitutional measures; and the only means left us to escape 
the consequences of such a measure would be to go over to Mr. Van 
Buren’s principles, and advocate the right of free negro suffrage; a 
measure which I detest, and one which my constituents will never 
submit to. 

I ask again, is it right to receive petitions here which strike at the 
very foundation of federal representation? which go to dissolve the 
body politic by an infringement of the high privilege expressly secured 
to the South in the Constitution? 

This principle of representation has been held sacred by the people 
of this country from the adoption of the Constitution, and by none 
more cherished than by the freemen of Georgia. 

The history of Georgia politics places this right of representation 
in a strong point of view. By reference to the Journals of this House, 
there may be found a bold and eloquent argument in the case of Jack- 
son against Wayne, made by James Jackson, of Georgia, a hero of 
the Revolution, and the father of the Republican party in Georgia, in 
favor of this sacred constitutional right of representation. 

1 cannot recur to a name so illustrious, to a man who fought so long 
and so valorously for freedom, to a Whig of the Revolution, without re¬ 
membering one of the most prominent causes of that Revolution—a 
denial by the mother country of the right of representation ; and shall 
we be less tenacious of the right than onr fathers ? Shall we surren¬ 
der to a few fanatics, urged forward by an unholy zeal, a principle 
which our fathers refused to surrender to the arms of Europe, and 
maintained at the cannon’s mouth ? Never, I hope. God forbid it. 

The member from Vermont (Mr. Slade) made one admission which 
is fatal to his abolition doctrines—his right of petition. He says there 
are some things it would not be proper to petition for. One of his 
cases is, that it would be improper to petition this body to hang an ab¬ 
olitionist. I doubt not the gentleman had some forebodings of what 
his fate might be if he were to carry his principles into practical op¬ 
eration; in throwing this shield around himself, he has conceded the 
whole ground. And let me ask the gentleman if it would be less law¬ 
ful or religious to hang him up to one of these pillars until he was 
dead, dead, than it would be to arm an incendiary with a torch in one 
hand and a dagger in the other, to burn my house and murder my 
family ? Yet such is the criminal denunciation of some of these peti¬ 
tioners. They have had the madness to say that if they canrrot abol¬ 
ish slavery by law, they will do it with the sword, or, what is worse, 
they send incendiary pamphlets into our country to excite our slaves 
to deeds of insurrectionary warfare. 

Mr. Speaker, three years ago about this time, I met the honorable 
gentleman (Mr. Granger) on this floor, and when I attempted to re¬ 
ply to his defence of the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Adams,) 
I was gagged down with the previous question. The gentleman, if I 
remember right, asked us to let them fight our battles at the North. 

[Mr. Granger denied he had ever claimed to fight the battles af 
the South.] 


7 


Mr. Alford said, 1 am glad of it. 1 would not trust him or an)^ 
Northern man to fight our battles with the abolitionists alone. Let 
those who would fight for us there, fight with us here. But I fear they 
are all Whigs, all Democrats, on this subject at home; all against 
slavery in the abstract. The South has been gulled long enough with 
this right of petition so sacred to the honorable gentleman. Of one 
thing I am certain: he said then, as he says now, that the North has 
rights and dare maintain them. The reception of these petitions 
under that clause of the Constitution already alluded to, which secures 
the right of petition for the redress of grievances, is not one of those 
rights to which his declaration applied. He should maintain no such 
a right. What are we to understand by this threat, that the North 
has rights and dare maintain them?” We are to be taught, I sup¬ 
pose, that under the authority to petition Congress for a redress of 
iheir grievances, they will enforce upon us a reception of abolition 
petitions, and trample under their feet our rights of property and re¬ 
presentation both. 

They charge us with having mixed the right of petition with the 
question of abolition, and say that they will dare maintain that right, 
although they admit that they cannot abolish slavery at all, so long as 
the Constitution is in force. If they have no right to abolish slavery 
at all what right have they to trouble Congress with these petitions? 
The argument is absurd on the face of it. What means this declara¬ 
tion—this threat that they dare to do surh deeds ? Does the gentleman 
intend to carry this measure by force of arms ? Are we to be swept 
away by the power of the North as with the besom of destruction ? 
Is the South to fall by force without resistance ? 

I cannot contemplate the possibility of Congress entertaining these 
doctrines without feelings of horror. If ever this power is once car¬ 
ried out effectually, .it will raise a fire of discord, it w’ill light the torch 
of civil war, and the consuming element will sweep over this nation as 
the tempest sweeps over the ocean, as the ocean sweeps over the 
earth when driven by the fury of the warring elements. Before the 
howling of the tempest shall hush, and the fire of war blast out, the 
last son of the South shall perish a martyr to our constitutional rights. 

Mr. Speaker, I now have in my eye the honorable gentleman from 
New York who did say three years ago (when. Democrat as he is, he 
stood by his colleague. Whig as he is, in defence of Mr. Adams) 
that the South should let the battle be fought at the North. 

[Mr. VandeRpoel inquired if Mr. Alford alluded to him.] 

Mr. Alford said I allude to the leader of the Administration forces 
in this House, to him who leads with a whip, to the gentleman who 
represents Kinderhook—it is unparliamentary to call members by 
name—I allude to him who, when New Jersey was striken from the 
roll of States, stood upon this floor and thanked God that the voice 
of democracy was triumphant in this House; that the voice of the 
Democratic party in New Jersey had been heard in this Hall. Yes, 
Mr. Speaker, the voice of democracy has been heard, and the gentle¬ 
man rejoices at the fact, and speaks of regenerated States. That voice 


8 


of democracy which hails from New Jersey is not the voice of heir 
people, but it is the voice of aliens carted about by Van Buren men 
to raise the hue and cry of modern democracy, of Connell demo¬ 
cracy. Yes, sir, to raise a tumultuous shout of alien, O’Connell, de¬ 
mocratic triumph over the native citizens and legal voters of a gallant 
State, speaking as they did in favor of the Opposition cause by their 
own people through the medium of a constitutional Government. But, 
sir, the voice of the sons of New Jersey cannot prevail; right yields 
to force, and the voice of law is drowned by a wild and disorderly 
shout of the mob, which is called here the voice of democracy—a 
voice that comes from the land of O’Connell, that breaks upon 
the shores of New Jersy, that rings through the spell-bound regions of 
the “ enchanted mountains,” that wakes up the drowsy inhabitants of 
“ Sleepy Hollow,” and they too hail the triumph of this cause of re¬ 
generating democracy^ and join the shout of that democracy, echoed 
here by the “ leader” of “ the party” in this Hall. 

[Mr. Vanderpoel asked Mr. Alford to yield for an explanation.] 

Mr. Alford said, after I am done. I found it too hard to get the 
floor to give it up. I cannot let go my grip until I have said what I 
have to say. 1 can tell the gentleman that, unless I am mistaken in 
the signs of the times, this modern democracy will soon come to an 
end. This Van Buren-Calhoun-Bentonian-Buchanan democracy 
will blow up at the end of Mr. Van Buren’s eight years, if he is re¬ 
elected, I “ guess.” 

The Speaker interposed, and Mr. Alford said, sit still, Mr. 
Speaker, I will go back to argument. 

I hold in my hand the most eloquent and conclusive argument in 
favor of the constitutional rights of the South on this question of 
slavery, and against the course pursued by these fanatics, I have 
seen or read; and, what is astonishing to all lovers of truth vlhA justice, 
it in the very speech of William Henry Harrison from which gar¬ 
bled extracts have been made to prove him an abolitionist, and for 
which he has been doomed to encounter the united opposition of the 
whole South ; and this same speech is now published in the Emancipa¬ 
tor, under a long editorial denunciation of General Harrison as^an anti- 
abolitionist, and declaring that no abolitionist can support him for the 
Presidency, because he goes with the South. And I am happy, sir, 
that whilst I use his speech to prove the truth of my position, I am 
but doing an act of justice to a statesman and a patriot, a friend of 
the South, who has been misrepresented and belied. Let not gentle¬ 
men suppose that I am about to become the advocate of General Har¬ 
rison for the Presidency. Georgia stands on neutral ground. We 
have a man of our own—the immortal Troup —who is better qualified 
to administer the Government, in my opinion, than Harrison and Van 
Buren both put together. I go for Troup, sir; but if ever he is out 
of the question, I have a right to enjoy my own opinion as between 
the other two; and I am willing to judge them by their own acts, and 
choose between them upon their principles in regard to this very 
question. 


9 


I will now give General Harrison’s views as authority on this ques¬ 
tion. Hear them : 

Extract from remarks of General William Henry Harrison at the Public 

Dinner given to him by the citizens of Vincennes, Indiana, on the 25th May, 

1835. 

“ I have now, fellow-citizens, a few words more to say to you on another sub¬ 
ject ; and which is, in my opinion, of more importance than any other that is now 
in the course of discussion in any part of the Union. I allude to the societies 
which have been formed, and the movements of certain individuals in some of the 
States in relation to a portion of the population in others. The conduct of these 
persons is the more dangerous, because the object is masked under the garb of dis¬ 
interestedness and benevolence, and their course vindicated by arguments and prop¬ 
ositions which in the abstract no one can deny. But however fascinating may be 
the dress with which their schemes are presented to their fellow-citizens; with 
whatever purity of intention they may have been formed and sustained, they will 
be found to carry in their train mischief to the whole Union, and horrors to a large 
portion of it, which it is probable some of the projectors and many of their sup¬ 
porters have never thought of; the latter, the first in the series of evils, which are 
to spring from this source, are such as you have read of to have been perpetrated 
on the fair plains of Italy and Gaul by the Scythian hordes of Attila and Alaric, 
and such as most of you apprehended on that memorable night, when the toma¬ 
hawks and war clubs of the followers of Tecumseh were rattling in your suburbs. 

I regard not the disavowals of any such intention upon the part of the authors of 
these schemes, since, upon the examination of the publications which have been 
made, they will be fouttd to contain every fact and every argument which would 
have been used if such had been their objects. I am certain that there is not in 
this assembly one of these deluded men, and that there are few within the bounds 
of the State. If there are any, I would earnestly entreat them to forbear, to pause 
in their cai’eer, and deliberately consider the consequences of their conduct to the 
whole Union, to the States more immediately interested, and to those for whose 
benefit they profess to act. That the latter will be the victims of the weak, inju¬ 
dicious, presumptuous, and unconstitutional efforts to secure them, a thorough 
examination of the subject must convince them. The struggle (and struggle there 
must be) may commence with horrors such as I have described, but it will end 
with more firmly riveting the chains, or in the utter extirpation of those whose 
cause they advocate. Am I wrong, fellow-citizens, in applying the terms weak, 
presumptions, and unconstitutional to the measures of the emancipators'? A slight 
examination will, I think, show that I am not. In a vindication of the objects of 
a convention which was lately held in one of the towns of Ohio, which I saw in a 
newspaper, it was said that notliing more W'as intended than to produce a state of 
public feeling which would lead to an amendment of the constitution, authorizing 
*he abolition of slavery in the United States. Now, can an amendment of the 
constitution be effected without the consent of the Southern States ? What, then, 
is the proposition to be submitted to them ? It is this. The present provisions of 


10 


the constitution secure to you the right (a right which you held before it was made, 
and which you have never given up) to manage your domestic concerns in your 
own way; but as we are convinced that you do not manage them properly, W'e 
want you to put in the hands of the General Government, in the councils of which 
we have the majority, the control over these matters, the effect of which will be 
virtually to transfer the power from yours into other hands. Again, in some of 
the States, and in sections of others, the black population far exceeds that of the 
white. Some of the emancipators propose an immediate abolition. What is the 
proposition then as it regards those States and parts of States, but the alternative 
of amalgamation with the blacks, or an exchange of situations with them 1 Is 
there any man of common sense who does not believe that the emancipated blacks, 
being a majority, will not insist upon a full participation of the political rights 
with the whites, and, when possessed of these, that they will not contend for a 
full share of the social rights also 1 What but the extremity of weakness and folly 
could induce any one to think that such propositions as these could be listened to 
by a people so intelligent as those of the Southern States 1 Further, the emanci¬ 
pators generally declare that it is their intention to effect their object (although 
their acts contradict the assertion) by no other means than by convincing the slave 
holders that the immediate, emancipation of the slaves is called for both by moral 
obligation and sound policy. An unfledged youth at the moment of his leaving 
(indeed, in many instances before he has left) his Theological Seminary, under¬ 
takes to give lectures upon morals to the countrymen of Wythe, Tucker, Pendle¬ 
ton, and Lowndes, and lessons of political wisdom to States whose affairs have so 
recently been directed by Jefferson and Madison, Macon and Crawford. Is it pos¬ 
sible that instances of greater vanity and presumption could be exhibited 1 

“But the course pusued by the emancipators is unconstitutional. I do not say 
that there any words in the constitution which forbid such discussions as they say 
they are engaged in. I know that there are not. And there is even an article 
which secures to the citizens the right to express and publish their opinions with¬ 
out restriction. But in the construction of the constitution it is always necessary 
to refer to the circumstances under which it was formed, and to ascertain its mean¬ 
ing by a comparison of its provisions with each other, and with the previous situ¬ 
ation of the several States who were parties to it. In a portion of these slavery 
was recognised, and they took care to have the right secured to them to follow and 
reclaim such of them as were fugitives to other States. The laws of Congress 
passed under this power have provided punishment to any who shall oppose or in¬ 
terrupt the exercise of this right. Now, can any one believe that the instrument 
which contains a provision of this kind, which authorizes a master to pursue his 
slave into another State, take him back, and promises a punishment for any citizen 
or citizens of that State who should oppose him, should at the same time author¬ 
ize the latter to assemble together, to pass resolutions and adopt addresses, not only 
to encourage the slaves to leave their masters, but to cut their throats before they 
do so 1 I insist that, if the citizens of the non-slaveholding States can avail them¬ 
selves of the article of the constitution which prohibits the restriction of speech or 
the press to publish any thing injurious to the rights of the slaveholding States, 


11 


ihey can go to the extreme that I have mentioned, and effect any thing further 
which writing or speaking could effect. But, fellow-citizens, these are not the 
principles of the constitution. Such a constitution would defeat one of the great 
objects of its formation, which was that of securing the peace and harmony of the 
States which were parties to it. The liberty of speech and of the press were given 
as the most effectual means to preserve to each and every citizen their own rights, 
and to the States the rights which appertained to them at the time of its adoption. 

“ It could never have been expected that it would be used by the citizens of oug 
portion of the States for the purpose of depriving those of another portion of the 
rights which they had reserved at the adoption of the constitution, and in the ex¬ 
ercise of which none but themselves have any concern or interest. If slavery be 
an evil, (and no one more readily acknowledges it than Ido,) the evil is with 
them. If there is guilt in it, the guilt is theirs, not ours, since neither the States 
where it does not exist, nor the Government of the United States, can, without 
usurpation of power and the violation of a solemn compact, do any thing to re¬ 
move it, without the consent of those who are immediately interested. With that 
consent, there is not a man in the whole world who would more willingly contrib¬ 
ute his aid to accomplish it than I would. If my vote could effect it, every sur¬ 
plus dollar in the Treasury should be appropriated to that object. But they will 
neither ask for aid nor consent to be aided, so long as the illegal, persecuting, and 
dangerous movements are in progress of which I complain; the interest of all con¬ 
cerned requires that these should be immediately stopped. This can only be done 
by the force of public opinion, and that cannot too soon be brought into operation. 
Every movement which is made by the abolitionists in the non-slaveholding States 
is viewed by our Southern brethren as an attack upon their rights, and which, if 
persisted in, must in the end eradicate those feelings of attachment and affection 
between the citizens of all the States which was produced by a community of in¬ 
terests and dangers in the war of the Revolution, which was the foundation of our 
happy Union, and by a continuance of which it can alone be preserved. I entreat 
you then, fellow-citizens, to frown upon the measures which are to produce results 
so much to be deprecated.” 

Without entering into a full detail of the merits of the gentleman at 
the head of this Government, I turn to the supporters of the adminis¬ 
tration, and ask them, if they please, to show me wherein the pres¬ 
ent Chief Magistrate of this Union ever held such language as thisi 
Has he ever declared that the abolition of slavery would be unconsti¬ 
tutional 1 On the contrary, has he not declared and admitted that, 
with the lights before him, he could not say but that it might be abol¬ 
ished ? Has he ever said that the “efforts” of these petitioners 
were “ weak^ injudicious^ presumptuous^ and unconstitutional ?” Has 
'he ever “entreated them to pause in their career?” No man can 
answer in the affirmative to these questions for Martin Van Buren, 
w'ith truth and sincerity.' What has he said—what has he done ? 
“ Let us render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.” In that 
great and truly alarming agitation of the question of slavery as regards 
the State of Missouri, Mr. Van Buren proved, by his vote, that he 


was opposed to slavery; and not only that he was opposed, but that 
he would refuse to admit a State into the Union, rather than that her 
people should judge and act for themselves on the question of slavery. 
He voted in the Legislature of New York to instruct an ultra federal¬ 
ist (Rufus King) to refuse the admission of Missouri into this Union 
if her constitution recognised slavery. I do not give the words of the 
resolution, but the substance. 

Where was old Tippecanoe at that vastly important crisis in our 
affairs'? Side by side in this House with those that led the van in 
favor of slavery—side by side with the republicans of the South, he 
made a full and glorious sacrifice of himself for the people of Missou¬ 
ri. He voted to sustain her constitutional right of slavery, and was 
beaten out of Congress for the part he took in behalf of Southern in¬ 
terests and Southern institutions. Is the gentleman from Missouri in 
the House? Oh, Missouri! (Oh, Misery!) What has Mr. Van 
Buren done for you ? 

If Ml*. Van Buren had done as much for us as General Harrison, I 
would not hesitate to marshal myself in his ranks at once, as he now 
pretends to be so much of a State rights man; but still I fear his 
measures. His message recommends strict economy, (good,) but he 
intimates very plainly that, after all the economy he recommends has 
been used by us, there will still be a deficit of revenue, and leaves us 
to infer, as I understand him, that more will be wanting. How we 
are to raise it under the plane in his message, without an increase of 
tarifl’ duties, is not for me to say. The South may look out. I pass 
over many of his acts, and come down to his last public act^ by which 
he proves himself to be now what he was in early life—the constant, 
uncompromising enemy of Southern institutions. I mean his vote in 
regard to slavery in Florida. On every occasion where he has voted 
on the question of slavery, he has voted against it. 

Extract from the Senate Journal. 

“The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the 
bill for the establishment of a Territorial Government in Florida ; and the bill hav¬ 
ing been amended, it was reported to the House accordingly ; and, 

“ On the question to concur in the amendment to the 11th section, to strike 
out, after the word ‘freedom,’ in the 14th line thereof, the residue of said section, 
as follows: 

“‘No slave or slaves shall, directly or indirectly be introduced into the said 
Territory, except by a citizen of the United States removing into the said Territory 
for actual settlement, and being, at the time of such removal, bona fide owner of 
such slave or slaves; or any citizen of the United States travelling into the said 
Territory, with any servant or servants, not exceeding two, and every slave im¬ 
ported or brought into the said Territory contrary to the provisions of this act, 
shall, thereupon, be entitled to and receive his or hefr freedom.’ 

“ It was determined in the affirmative : Yeas 23, nays 20. 

“ On motion by Mr. Mills, the yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the 
Senators present, 


13 


“Those who voted in the affirmative are— 

“Messrs. Barbour, Benton, Brown of Louisiana, D’Wolf, Eaton, Elliott, Gail- 
lard, Holmes of Mississippi, Johnson of Kentucky, Johnson of Louisiana, .King of 
Alabama, Lloyd, Macon, Noble, Pleasants, Smith, Southard, Stokes, Van Dyke, 
Walker, Ware, Williams of Mississippi, Williams of Tennessee. 

“ Those who voted in the negative are— 

“Messrs. Barton, Boardman, Brown of Ohio, Chandler, Dickerson, Findlay, 
Holmes of Maine, King of New York, Knight, Lanman, Lowrie, Mills, Morrill, 
Otis, Palmer, Parrott, Ruggles, Seymour, Thomas, VAN BUREN.” 

The enemies of Mr. Van Bwren have denied him one quality which 
he possesses in an eminent degree—that of courage. In “ treading 
in the footseps of his illustrious predecessor,” he has exhibited no 
signs of faltering. A sovereign Stale has gone by the board, and he 
shows no signs of alarm. General Jackson, in his prime, never dared 
to do a deed so bold. Hundreds and thousands of American citizens 
have been disfranchised by an Executive edict, issued, no doubt, in 
secret, to be carried into effect by the Clerk of this House, and the 
party here^ by which a State loses five out of six of her Representatives, 
for the sole purpose of giving the President and his party the power 
to rule this House, and through the action of this House to'secure his 
re-election. Is not this a monstrous usurpation 1 Has history any 
parallel 1 Tyrants have dissolved legislative bodies by force of arms, 
but here the President wills it, and it is done almost without a struggle. 

Mr. Speaker, I have said it, and 1 repeat it here, elected as I was 
by the State rights party of Georgia to a seat in this House, on the 
principle that I stood in opposition to this administration—elected by 
a party opposed to Mr. Van Buren—opposed to measures enumerated 
by me in this effort in behalf of my constituents as belonging to him— 
I cannot consent to be counted among those who follow his adminis¬ 
tration, and I seek this early opportunity to “ define my position,” 
that I may not be suspected by any man living. 

A man like me, Mr. Speaker, who has ever been accustomed to 
roam at large in the beautiful forests of bis own, his native land, un¬ 
controlled even by parental authority, cannot'submit 'to be harnessed 
with the shackles of party, and collared with Van Burenism. No, 
sir ; no, sir. I will go against this administration as long as it goes 
wrong, and when it goes right I will go home. 

[Some member replied, you will remain here a long time, my dear 
sir.] 

If I were compelled to take sides in the contest between William 
Henry Harrison and Martin Van Buren, I would not hesitate to sup¬ 
port the man who declared in 1835 that the conduct of the abolition¬ 
ists was wealth injudicious^ presumptuous^ and unconstitutional;^'* 
and that, too, in a non-slaveholding Slate, and to a non-slaveholding 
people. The man who stood by Missouri—the General who pro¬ 
tected the great valley of the Mississippi by his deeds of valor, and 
secured to its inhabitants peace and protection in place of danger and 


14 


alarm—such a man is General Harrison. And if I were to conceal 
my preference for him over Mr. Van Buren, I should act uncandidly 
to my friends, and dishonestly with myself. He pronounced the ef¬ 
forts of the abolitionists unconstitutional. I am proud to call his opin¬ 
ion to aid my own. Hence I say, refuse to receive these abominable 
petitions, and disregard these fanatics. 





i.’fvv '4''' 












■f. 







*' o « 0 ^ ^ 



oy- 









V ,'•<■- "V .0^ >•••'* > '^ ' 


°' c\ 

) . • , 
o xO / 

° C^ 

o A V o • C,*^ 

/ . c° . °o ./ X 



% -n-o^ 





<J> ^ o w 0 


9 I ^ 


o ^ • , t • ^ \0 

-#■. A-i ^ «, /^Va" '#',^ 


^ CL 

vT S 


) •* 







o ^ ^ O 


\ 


«» ^ ^ 
o V 


o V 


o' 

o N 0 "* 


,> 


V 


\ 


'f 


VJ' ^ ° 

® ° 




* ^ 

..Si,.* «.^ X '- . 

s' A <,'<...* .0^ ‘...s' A 

t / <, qV 0 « c ^ *^0 A*^ . t ' . ^ ^ 

j-fr -t. C - 

*> 


° ''vP‘3' 




. o > 


* < o 

kV ^ 


/ 1 ' ^ o N o 


%> V 


\0 ■^T^. * 

'c- .0^ 'J.iiw'' 

o % A^ .‘>f?tek.'. 

° V 

* ■3.^ '^s? ■'WW* '^■ 


o .e5 °.<. ■ 

” °'U ''' •^~ 

*'■ '^v a‘^ - 

“ .^^•v « 


'* o' 'o “"v 




^ A "O . A * ,0^ ^vT) A 


0’ 0°"“^ o 


^ * • * A% 

0^0^ C^ 


' 

■!''*’ .- 'Js!.*, 'U 


o V 




o V 


* 4 o 

.V ^ 


\0 yr^ * 

V ^ 

A' ''^*’- \*'' °'^ ’■ A 

O, ^ V^ !» ’ • °.C 




» ■” 
•‘ 'V 


<o ^ 

Vv 


’ 0 

.,.• o' 

O^ 5 • ♦ 

V 


,> 


• A -• O A^*^ * A 

^ ^ ^ A^ o%/■*» «? 

. s" A 'o. * * 0^ *"7^ *" A 'o. X '* 0^ % ' 

A^ • •■ ' • ♦ Or o ° " ® -» -A ♦*■'•.» ,.0^ o ® " “ '^O 






V 


• / 


» sr^'S^' 


V ^ 


• • 


':rv<^- 

® A^'^ o 

* -V ^ ’’ 


O 

7 o 

-oA’ % " 

♦ x> v'^ ^'' * °- o. 

* A^ f(\\ /K cy 


7 ^0 


0’ o 


^ . L ^ 


* A <G 




•' ■ 

' ^ -^b '.T^^s' A 

0^ r ® '* ® ^ • <- ' « 

^ /vT^zJ' -r ^ 


«* ^ 


b V 



* < o 

O 4^ 

7 .K o ^ 


^^ r\ 

^ r\ •' 

*'••• A® * on o-^ 

V” ‘ "Cr <0^ \z ^ ’ 

•^‘ A* .s^ .*A^!?A<- A^ .3^. A *'« 




ri\ 















'^o V 


,0 


0 





0* 

. «0 <J, o^ . 





v:> -f *■- s ^ A 



"^fv cy * 

: ■i^ ” 

° ’^^'V * 



° ^ 

- - o O^ 

^ ^ -> V 



/• S v/' 

<V 'o**"* ^ 

N o^/ITTp^ ^ ^ 0 ♦ o 


<2. 


^ / T 


Ch^ ^n 

A 




>■ }p '^i. 

'^ r\ -<^ ^ 

O N o 


' O , , 

U • ci;5:^ o 

0^ 


•'#;!• .0 



° ^ ^ 

. o- O 

o „ o ’ o * 



o 

A ° 

. «^ A . <A ' o . . 

A '‘^r/i:- 


o V 



^ 0 


°»* .0 \D ^ 

V . „ „ 



4 V^ ^ 

A- ■'<. '’^o* ^ 

A,./ 


vP 9 






v!^ 

o o V 


*“ A"'"^ 

’ a' ^'' 'o. .•* ^ 

A ‘'‘/^i,* (-0^ ‘°4.°'’ '^° 

N ^ ^/ 1 ? 7 p -> ^ C ♦ c-c5^S:tv.u.^ o 



« S 


^ 




vT 






\0 '7% 

, .,A'%a®/v, - ■f'^ . «<0»fc'. -i^ 

vT^ S '’ 

A r<, O 

^ O 






A 




/ T 




^ O « <7 ^ 

o 

l/» 



o V' 


* . , o ’ y O^ . 

^ . » * o . Q» 

v\ ^ o 

r r. . _r<s„ O ^ ^ 





0 






o > 

o ‘ 

® „ o ^ O ^ 

* AL'--' ^ 

iffl^ V 



. o > 



*7^ 

o< 


c' 




C^> ^ 




0 ^*1 ' 
^ ' A 

o> NKy:s^ • <j r o 

^ o „ o ■’ O 

0^ s**, 

'' A'^ o 


« / 


A. A 


v/* S 


vA o 



t • o 




O’ 'o 



A .A'AA.A .A ' 


r 

,,.’ A A ■'''''■■ f° 

V . ’ * cv A - * • * - 

A 


•' A A - 

% /\ ^ ^'T '' ■6*’ /'■'^ A '* 

• O > \ ^ <> • ^ .0 O 

•*■'*- r\^ o a 

*" o J'^jr?>^ ^ ^ u ^ ^ 

^r + fj^A[ />-^ 

^ ^W/z^ * A. ■<^ ' 



• o > 




o O > 


•':^C;^'’” Ar> A o* 

\ V ^ 


fe 6 \ 





'' A '?►'■ A'^A. '• 

"A A <’^ -T.1’ G^ '^• 

,c>jxo*;>^o i. o’^ "^O 

^ ^ ♦SiIpA^-' At C • o 


A 


b A 









< o 














